Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Group analysis of Zimmerman video

Group analysis of Zimmerman video

The video of George Zimmerman reenacting the events the night he shot Trayvon Martin has been released.

I will analyze this video and the other evidence (including lie detector video and audio police statement) just released by the defense, but I don’t have time right now, so perhaps we could do a group analysis.  Post in the comments.

video platform
video management
video solutions
video player

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

In the days immediately following the shooting, and reporter from the Orlando Sentinel did outstanding fact-based reporting on the incident-

Including personal interviews with eye-witnesses and detectives.

The re-enactment was part of her reporting.

Mind you–this is before the father contacted att. Junk…er…Crump-

I had thought all this was common knowledge, and the obvious case for self-defense was….obvious.

You can imagine my surprise when 2 weeks later I saw members of the House of Representatives screaming “THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION!”

    Ragspierre in reply to Browndog. | June 21, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    THAT is a point very well taken.

    Which sort of goes to the power of the megaphone one has.

    There are two sides to every story. Sometimes, only one is paid attention to.

      aussietwo in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm

      Exactly.

      The survivor/shooter gets to tell his side.

      The DEAD ONE doesn’t.

      That is exactly why it should be up to a court to decide who was right or wrong. Not a lot of shooters would openly admit deliberate murder. Most would try to claim self-defence. So just saying “he started it” is to be expected but NOT ENOUGH for the police to be taking his word on.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to aussietwo. | June 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm

        It should be up to Floridians to decide their laws.

        Not you.

        Phillep Harding in reply to aussietwo. | June 21, 2012 at 11:34 pm

        “Innocent until proven guilty”. The police and DA have to have a reasonable suspicion that the survivor was quilty before taking it to court. Simply being the sole survivor is not enough in the US.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to aussietwo. | June 22, 2012 at 11:06 am

        Oh, good grief. Are you suggesting that every person who kills in self-defense should be tried?

Henry Hawkins | June 21, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Well, I’d just like to point out that George W. Bush did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this horrific attack.

It really is a justifiable homicide. From Zimmerman’s point of view (or any reasonable person), he faced imminent death from Martin going for his gun. There was no possibility of retreat; so don’t even bring up this stand your ground nonsense.

And to think this fool of a DA — Angela Corey — is trying this as second degree murder! She should be sanctioned for the fraudulent affidavit she submitted to the court.

BTW, if I had a son and the mother was black, he would look like Trayvon!

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Malonth. | June 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    “There was no possibility of retreat..”

    Sure there was. I’ll bet that this very minute there are at least 10,000 people in America digging holes. He could have tunneled his way to safety.

    —-

    I was checking out Zimmerman’s hands. There’s a saying among brawlers that in terms of physical damage there is no winner, just different sets of damage. Zimmerman’s hands – knuckles – show no signs of damage I can see. His injuries are to his face and back of his head, the injury profile of the victim.

      aussietwo in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 21, 2012 at 10:24 pm

      “Zimmerman’s hands – knuckles – show no signs of damage I can see. His injuries are to his face and back of his head, the injury profile of the victim.”

      Martin’s hands – knuckles – showed no signs of damage at the autopsy which was more thorough that you watching a video. (one 1/4 inch scratch). His injuries were an intermediate range hollow point bullet to the heart — the injury profile of a real victim.

        According to the autopsy, the skin on Trayvon Martin’s knuckles was broken.

          Twilliger in reply to gad-fly. | June 23, 2012 at 6:59 am

          “According to the autopsy, the skin on Trayvon Martin’s knuckles was broken.”

          No, that is not what the autopsy report said. That is what a dishonest or incompetent reporter stated. The autopsy report says that Martin had a “1/4 by 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger”. And that is it as far as injuries to either hand.

        By definition, “intermediate range” is a distance of one inch to 18 inches. It fits perfectly with the eye-witness reports of Trayvon atop GZ just before the shot.

        What is this remark about “the injury profile of a real victim?” Are you a troll?

        Meriadoc in reply to aussietwo. | June 22, 2012 at 12:23 am

        The autopsy report states the opposite. Even CBS News had to admit that Martin’s knuckles showed trauma: “New details emerged on Wednesday regarding the condition of Martin’s body. Wounds found on the 17-year-old’s knuckles may support George Zimmerman’s claim that the unarmed teenager assaulted him before he was fatally shot, CBS News reports.”

        And: “A responder at the crime scene told CBS News that he and others saw wounds on the knuckles of one of Martin’s hands as he lay dead on this lawn. This suggests that Martin had thrown a punch.”

        The official autopsy report can be read HERE. The whole CBS report can be read here:
        Trayvon Martin Shooting: Autopsy results say slain teen had injuries to his knuckles.

        Even arch-liberal CBS News admits that Martin had trauma on his knuckles. Don’t even think about spreading false information on this blog.

          Twilliger in reply to Meriadoc. | June 23, 2012 at 7:03 am

          If you are gonna post a link to the autopsy report you should read it. It says nothing about “injuries to knuckles”. That came from dishonest or incompetent reporters. As far as injuries to Martin’s hands, the autopsy report only says he had a “1/4 by 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger”.

          Not exactly consistent with him wailing on Zimmerman long enough for George to cry for help 50 times as he said in one of his recounts.

        Estragon in reply to aussietwo. | June 22, 2012 at 3:40 am

        You are NOT quoting the autopsy report, you are quoting the funeral director for the family.

        If you were familiar with the character of Mr. Crump and his associates, you would understand why some of us prefer to believe the official reports from people whose sworn duty is to record accurately instead of someone with no forensic qualifications who is getting paid by a party with an interest in what he says about it.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Malonth. | June 22, 2012 at 11:10 am

    As should have happened with Nifong, Corey, too, should be serving a sentence equal to that which would have been imposed on their “victims”, the accused.

    Twilliger in reply to Malonth. | June 23, 2012 at 8:11 am

    According to Zimmerman’s story there was no possibility of retreat. But his story may be a little too perfect. He is out looking for a guy who he thinks is gonna break into a house. And yet the guy is able to come up to him without him seeing him until the last second. And Zimmerman does not say the guy ran up to him. And the guy is enraged. So enraged that Zimmerman has no time to identify himself as neighborhood watch or back up when confronted.

Nanny Pelosi should have arrested Zimmerman.

Zimmerman’s account here confirms what was earlier reported: that Zimmerman shot Martin during their fight only after Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun, said “you’re gonna die tonight, mother-f***er,” and reached for the gun. At that point, what else could Zimmerman reasonably do? He couldn’t overpower Martin, who was on top of him; he’d already tried, unsuccessfully, to get away. It was either go for the gun himself, or let Martin take it and make good on his threat to kill him. Seems like a pretty clear case of self-defense.

It was also interesting that Zimmerman says he was the one repeatedly yelling for help, which contradicts Martin’s mother, who reportedly said the voice heard pleading for help on the 9-1-1 tapes was Trayvon’s. According to Zimmerman’s account, the only things Martin said after the fight started were “shut up, MF” (in response to Zimmerman’s yelling for help) and “you got me” (after he was shot). Nothing in Zimmerman’s account indicates that Martin was ever yelling for someone to help him.

    retire05 in reply to Observer. | June 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    What is even more interesting is that the day after the shooting, when Officer Serino of the SPD played the “help” tape for Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, Tracy Martin told Serino that the voice screaming for help was NOT his son’s voice.

    It was only many days later, after Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon’s mother, had lawyered up with Benjamin Crump that the story was that the screaming voice WAS Trayvon’s.

      JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to retire05. | June 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      This is a good comment but do keep in mind: Trayvon basically lived with him Mom miles away and had only recently been put in his Dad’s care after problems at school.
      He wasn’t even at his Dad’s house, he was at his Dad’s girlfriend’s house.
      I’m not sensing a lot of “concerned father involvement”. It’s possible the Dad doesn’t have a strong feeling for what Trayvon’s voice sounds like, esp in a stressful situation.
      All that blather aside, yeah, I bet it’s GZ calling for help.

        Estragon in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | June 22, 2012 at 3:44 am

        Martin was suspended from school for two weeks and was sent to stay with his father – his home is Miami. His father is living with his current girlfriend and her son.

        I have seen no evidence presented that his father wouldn’t know his son’s voice, or that he hadn’t seen him often.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | June 22, 2012 at 11:16 am

        Seriously? Because Trayvon lived with his mom, dad therefore might not know the sound of his 17 yr. old son’s voice?

        There is no logical scenario, given what we do know so far, in which Trayvon would be the one calling for help. The fact that anybody would even entertain statements made by two proven avaricious parents as truth is mortifying.

    Twilliger in reply to Observer. | June 23, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Interesting that Zimmerman is kinda claiming Martin saw his gun: “He saw it… I feel like he saw it.And he said you’re gonna die tonight MF. He reached for it, like I felt his arm going down by my side.”

    Very difficult to believe that someone would see a loaded handgun and then yell a death threat when clearly the thing to do is immediately get the gun away from Zimmerman.

    The officer at the scene does not describe a gun that would be visible from a jacket coming up:
    Smith later wrote: “Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject, and he was still armed. … Located on the inside of Zimmerman’s waistband, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semiauto handgun and holster.

You thought the Rodney King riots were bad?

Wait until Zimmerman walks.

    iconotastic in reply to jimg. | June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    It will be interesting to see which cities suffer the most from rioting. I would bet that cities with a high proportion of private firearm possession will suffer the least.

      Twilliger in reply to iconotastic. | June 23, 2012 at 8:18 am

      A city with a lot of private firearm possession will be a dangerous place to be if Zimmerman is convicted of anything. The right wingers will be firing as they riot.

    ThomasD in reply to jimg. | June 21, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Central Florida is not Southern California. Further any attempts by interested parties to rabble rouse/instigate will not go unnoticed or unreported like they did with the King verdict.

    There will be anguished cries from the usual suspects, and the MSM will go wall to wall with coverage until the obviousness of the non-outrage in the streets shames them into dropping it.

      Crawford in reply to ThomasD. | June 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm

      The riots won’t necessarily be in Southern Florida. They’ll be in Chicago, Peoria, St. Louis, *maybe* LA and Oakland. Maybe Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati.

      There was rioting in Peoria after Rodney King; it wasn’t because anyone there gave a rat’s patoot about him. It was because they saw rioting on TV and felt it was the thing to do. Last summer Peoria saw multiple race mob events; I think that city will join in any riots in the name of St. Trayvon(tm).

    betty in reply to jimg. | June 21, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    You thought the Rodney King riots were bad?
    Wait until Zimmerman walks.

    You know I’m getting tired of hearing that.

    What the people who would riot need to know is that there can be unpleasant consequences for rioting this time. Since they already have a “go ahead” from the DOJ we must realize we are on our own. In this circumstance, we need to give anyone who is actually under attack permission stand their ground.

    Neo in reply to jimg. | June 21, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Just wait until all of America’s racists send Obama packing.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jimg. | June 22, 2012 at 11:22 am

    If the public would simply arm itself, and let that be known, there won’t be any riots.

    There are a lot more people armed now than compared to 1992. I think these savages will be a bit reluctant to venture out of their own neighborhoods with their chimp tirades this time. If they tear up their own neighborhoods, fine, so be it. They’re only damaging themselves and presenting the opportunity to their intended victims to put them down like rabid dogs.

I’ve always felt that the Defense needs to focus on the preamble to the shooting because the whole deck of cards that is so flimsy in the charging affidavit falls down if jurors believe that Zimmerman didn’t just stalk a black teenager drinking ice tea and skittles. Zimmerman’s description of Trayvon Martin’s presence and how it led him to call 911 is critical. He describes in the 911 tape (fraudulently edited by NBC to make him appear racist), which is contemporaneous and occurring before the shooting, that Martin seemed to be on drugs and up to no good and seeming not right at all. This is repeated in the after-the-shooting investigation. The reports I’ve read so far reflect that it was a very cold and rainy evening in Sanford, Florida (again substantiated by Zimmerman telling the 911 operator it was “fu**ing cold” as opposed to a racial epithet–“fu**ing coon”). Sanford is at least 200 miles north of Miami where Martin was from, and it’s quite a bit colder there in the month at issue. If it’s raining and unseasonably cold in northern Florida, you don’t just hang around–you’d hightail it home. So the Defense should trace the time of the 7-11 purchase by Martin, the time of the 911 call, the time it takes to walk back to the community, together with the cellphone records of Martin and the girlfriend. If Martin was loitering, or even just appearing to be loitering to Zimmerman, this counteracts the narrative that Zimmerman stalked Martin and did so because he was “black.” And it was even more reasonable for Zimmerman to be concerned about someone possibly casing a home/apartment given the past history of break-ins in the neighborhood.

Something I noted in the video was the meter box (I guess) covers that you see a few feet from the sidewalk.

Sometimes these are plastic, and sometimes concrete. Could account for NOT being beaten against the sidewalk, while being beaten against something much harder than a wet lawn.

Here are my comments:
1. George Zimmerman is a hero and America needs more men like him
2. Trayvon Martin was a punk gangster.
3. Many people are much more safe now that Trayvon Martin is dead
4. Zimmerman acted completely in self-defense
5. The prosecutor in this case is on a jihad to screw Zimmerman (the defendant) to the wall in hopes that no one will notice her (the prosecutor) outrageously vile behavior

    Twilliger in reply to [email protected]. | June 23, 2012 at 7:36 am

    We don’t know if Zimmerman acted in self-defense because there are no witnesses to the start of the fight. Zimmerman says he was struck first. There is no other story a guy who just show someone would say. Doesn’t make it the truth.

jimzinsocal | June 21, 2012 at 3:16 pm

If I were a juror..I dont know how convinced Id be if I had to base my opinion on the first video. First thing I noticed was some confusion about where exactly Zimm ended up after the punch. I got the feeling he added after thinking..oh it must have been closer to the sidewalk.
Then again I couldnt see his face clearly and see how his eye contact went.
But thats just me. And I admit I may be somewhat biased at this point due to the financial stuff connected with his wife etc. All that junk has strained his credibility to some degree with me as a casual observer.
Now if I were presidented with DNA scrapings from the sidewalk that tied Zim’s head to the concrete? Thats more convincing. I might buy his explanation more readily.
Dont take me wrong..I hope the guy does well in court and is treated correctly.

    jimzinsocal in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 21, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Sheesh..typo. “Presented” is what I meant not that jibberish.
    Also…the location of the cell phone made me wonder…you just used the damn thing..how far could it have gone?

    If I were a juror..I dont know how convinced Id be if I had to base my opinion on the first video. First thing I noticed was some confusion about where exactly Zimm ended up after the punch.

    1. Well, you got me to look at the video again. Zimmerman said all along that his memory was imprecise wrt the exact location.

    2. In any event, it is not Zimmerman’s responsibility to “convince” a juror. It is the prosecution’s job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s story is false. Based on the limited evidence I’ve seen, I give Zimmerman the benefit of reasonable doubt with plenty of room to spare.

    Self defense.

      jimzinsocal in reply to gs. | June 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm

      Of course and I agree. Simply my impression of what I saw on the video.
      The prosecution needs to prove depraved indifference I believe so both video’s are not going to help or hinder the prosecution’s case.

      caambers in reply to gs. | June 21, 2012 at 8:02 pm

      One thing to keep in mind, given the trauma to GZs head, it’s entirely possible that he could have had a minor concussion which would explain the fuzzy recollections. I’m pretty sure he had a headache and if it was anything like the one I had all day today, well, let’s just say my thought processes weren’t firing on all cylinders.

      aussietwo in reply to gs. | June 21, 2012 at 10:32 pm

      There’s a million lies. One truth.

      If someone keeps giving different versions all the time, they can’t all be that one truth. So the majority of what he says are lies. If you can’t pick (from other sources) which is the true one, you don’t have to believe any of them.

      The re-enactment and the “stress test” interview are close, almost word for word. But they are in many ways the opposite of what was recorded on tape when he rang. So these interviews are a lie, against that tape, which is Zim’s own original “witness” statement.

    Observer in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    jimzinsocal: I’m not that troubled by Zimmerman’s inability to remember exactly where he was when he hit the ground; after all, it was dark and he had more important things on his mind at the time than noting his precise location. (And I don’t mean to suggest any criticism of your comments when I say that. I understand that Zimmerman’s conduct in the bail hearing has raised some questions about his credibility).

    I’m curious about your remark that you’d be more inclined to believe Zimmerman’s account if you had some DNA from his head on the sidewalk. Do you doubt his story that Martin pushed his head down on the sidewalk, and if so, how do you account for the fresh (according to the police) lacerations on the back of Zimmerman’s head?

      jimzinsocal in reply to Observer. | June 21, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      LOL. Man I never should have posted.
      So far as DNA on the sidewalk..it would sure validate Zimm’s assertion he was pinned down on his back at xyz location was my only point really. Otherwise we need to accept his word on how those injuries occurred.
      I think folks are misunderstanding my observations really. Im playing the unconvinced juror is all and again assuming this video was part of the case…which it isnt.
      My impression and I explained why it may be biased, is that the video doesnt create a slam dunk..the guy is innocent for me. And sure..the video is a recounting of what we have read and what Zimm has stated happened. Our task here was to examine how credible his story seems in the video. If everyone is convinced 100% its accurate? Thats fine. I can live with being unconvinced by the video.

        Heh. My post on Neil Munro felt like I’d said colored people instead of people of color to the Tolerant Left.

        I still don’t think the feedback thumbs are a good idea. Since they’re here, I try to give thumbs-up’s when I see credible evidence of a superior post; thumbs-down’s, when the extreme opposite is beyond reasonable doubt.

    Crawford in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    And I admit I may be somewhat biased at this point due to the financial stuff connected with his wife etc.

    You mean you’d condemn a man to prison because the prosecution got an answer of “I don’t know but so-and-so does” then refused to ask so-and-so? And wouldn’t have a problem with the prosecution leaving that out in their statements to the court?

    If you’re ever called to jury duty, please let the defense attorney know you have this attitude.

      jimzinsocal in reply to Crawford. | June 21, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      Why make it personal? Were responding to a video is all and so far as I know we each are entitled to express how we react to the material. You go out of your way to speak to my admitted bias but ignore your own.
      The case rests in large part on Zimmerman’s credibility. Are you suggesting his credibility shouldnt be questioned or isnt an issue? Tell ya what..tell that to the panel next time you are up for jury duty. Tell them you saw a video of the defendants explanation and are convinced hes innocent.
      Lemme know how that works out.

    betty in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 21, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    In the beginning I was a little confused also about where Z landed and got his head bashed but then I noticed that they were standing at the intersection of two cement paths.

    deadrody in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 22, 2012 at 12:43 am

    DNA on the sidewalk ? Talk about the CSI effect. It was raining. The likelihood of collecting usable DNA from a sidewalk in the rain is approximately ZERO. And that’s on a good day.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 22, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Zimmerman already convinced whom he needed to convince, and that was the police. Never forget that this prosecution all came about because of black America’s anti-white jihad and the parent’s desire to hit the “victim” lotto. First they had to claim there had been no adequate investigation in order to get their own people or people who would take the ball and run for them in charge of it while they kept the narrative and the outrage ginned up. To demonize and sacrifice an innocent man means nothing to them and is necessary to them advancing their political shi+storm.

Midwest Rhino | June 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm

After all the pics of the child Trayvon, and tough guy Zimmerman, we need a Trayvon look alike standing next to Zimmerman. Martin had six inches height and at least as much muscle over Zimmerman.

An early report from the girlfriend, she told Martin to run home, Martin said he wasn’t going to do that. Did Zimmerman really call to meet police, just so he could first murder Martin, but only after taking a rather severe beating? What a clever fellow.

But the second video, Zimmerman then claims at one point he was on top, after the shot. That is odd. The 911 tape has one witness saying clearly Martin was on top, but I think they later got him to be doubtful. The physical evidence shows Zimmerman had to be underneath as he claims, at least for some time. But in the second video he says the guy that showed up arrived when he (Zimmerman) was on top, straddling Martin.

I can only guess that the trauma of the situation may have led to some strange recollections. Or did the cops suggest something to him and then he accepted their leading suggestion, still being traumatized?

I imagine Martin saying “you shot me!” … sort of in bully bewilderment mode, that he had somehow unfairly lost the fight.

    In many altercations where V is somewhat prone and S is “on top”, if S gets shot pointblank there should come a brief moment as S slumps and succumbs and V struggles to rise that V finds himself “on top”. It is a reasonable situation under the circumstances and shouldn’t be given exceptional weight over and above other facts, IMO.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to 49erDweet. | June 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      yeah … except for the part where Zimmerman says the guy that was outside and observed, and offered to call 911, arrived when he(Z) was on top, or at least after the shot … he said he needed help to restrain him (Martin). In the second video, Zimmerman seems to be trying to rationalize how he was on top … but he was clearly the one being beaten, And Martin’s profile fits with his being the bully.

      The second video has some discrepancy with the first … I guess the second was closer to the actual incident. There would be some blood on the sidewalk, even if they missed it that night. Everything fits the first video … the second video, my guess is, the police tried to inject doubt, claiming (falsely) the witness said he (Z) was on top. So Zimmerman tried to rationalize how that happened.

      Would that be SOP for cops?

        Yes, it would be SOP. But I’m not seeing that here. I’ve questioned and re-questioned hundreds of witnesses, and no two sessions were ever identical. I’d be suspicious if they were. These two videos are far enough apart to be well within the norms of true memory. I really don’t see any attempts at deception. He gives a good appearance of trying to recall as best he can what was a confusing and traumatic experience. Its apparent he takes the death of Martin seriously. It also comes across he was not expecting Martin’s aggressiveness and animosity towards him, nor does he appear to have taken it personally. He seems almost confused by it, and that is quite telling in-so-far as it speaks to lack of motive – without a lawyer present. Impressive.

        caambers in reply to Midwest Rhino. | June 21, 2012 at 8:06 pm

        It was raining here that night, the sidewalk was already wet and any blood would not have stuck. Subsequent rain or even sprinklers coming on would have washed the rest away.

        aussietwo in reply to Midwest Rhino. | June 21, 2012 at 10:37 pm

        Three witnesses said from the start they saw Zim on top. The guy who said “stop, I’m calling 911” thought he was on top at one point BEFORE the shot, and 2 women saw him on top just after, before the police arrived. No reason to believe he was not actually there. Bit harder to believe someone shot in the heart making quips, then still struggling and having to be restrained 15-20 secs later.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to aussietwo. | June 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm

          Yes we have all read some witnesses including the girlfriend via the media /blogs. Some have retracted /changed their story.

          In the end the only ones that count will be those that stand in the witness box & are willing to be examined.

          deadrody in reply to aussietwo. | June 22, 2012 at 1:00 am

          No, its not that unbelievable. Again we have people claiming they know how people react when shot because… ? They’ve seen it on tv. The human body is amazingly resilient. Just because you are shot, even in the heart, does not mean you die instantly.

I’m of two minds on this. Part of me wants to scream “You participated in a walk-through with the police? Where was your lawyer? Why would you hand the police yards of video tape that they will now slice and dice into tiny little snippets to show that not only were you on the grassy knoll, but you also shot JR and Elvis!”

The other part of me is somewhat gratified. In so many highly-publicized cases, you only get tiny little frustrating soundbites or infinitely repeated video bits on the evening news, or a “hard-hitting expose” by a MSM talking head. You never hear “the full story from the Defendant’s POV, as told the day after, to videotape, which is not chopped into tiny pieces with an overdubbing and a sound track.”

And now an ambitious prosecutor with an eye on higher office will use Zimmerman’s cooperation to see him go to jail for the rest of his life. And they wonder why we don’t cooperate with the police.

    Browndog in reply to georgfelis. | June 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    “You participated in a walk-through with the police? Where was your lawyer?

    No, it appears George did not intend to, or want to, kill anybody that night-and needed desperately for someone–including the police–to believe him-

    Hence, he felt he had nothing to hide-

    …and did not assert Executive Privilege…er….his 5th Amendment right.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to georgfelis. | June 22, 2012 at 11:52 am

    I, too, have been exasperated that GZ would give the cops so much without legal representation. But his naive faith in the system would not have been misplaced had this not been turned a political witch hunt by greedy parents and lawyers, ambitious prosecutors and politicians, and vicious anti-white racists. The incident was thoroughly investigated and was about to be looked at by a GJ. So the message here from the racists is “Whitey shall not defend himself against a black man, ever. He shall submit to barbarism and death at the hand of the black man. If you don’t, we will destroy you.” The other message is that any time a white defends himself, he must be made to pay and suffer. Even if you’re not really white, if you pass for white such that you can be labeled ‘white’, you’re good to go for our ‘get whitey’ financial rape and racist political jihad.”

IF jurors get to view both videos intact, as they are shown here, this will be the shortest jury deliberation in Florida history. It should take under ten minutes to find him not guilty on all counts. They won’t even need time to use the rest rooms!

So I predict the jurors will NOT be shown those complete videos. No way an ambitious prosecutor would allow that to happen. There is no need for the truth here. The national narrative requires the racist guy to be found guilty, otherwise it will be the end of the western world as we know it.

    Ragspierre in reply to 49erDweet. | June 21, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    90.108 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.–

    (1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.

    caambers in reply to 49erDweet. | June 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    O’Mara only has to show an overhead of the apartment complex, the three main sites of interest (clubhouse, Green’s apartment, altercation site) to show that GZ could not have followed TM, that TM had to have come up to GZ. Of course…the only other possibility is GZ tackled TM and carried him to the “T” intersecting sidewalks….but it would take a powerful imagination and a gullibility that borders on insanity to buy that hypothesis.

A bit more “felt like my head was going to explode” than I expected, could have used more expression of emotional distress while yelling help but he truly did an amazing job and made it their own.

How could the jury not see the whole thing? If the prosecution attempts to use edited snippets all the defense has to do is show the whole unexpurgated thing. Any attempts by the prosecution or judge to prevent that will not only sit poorly with a jury, but also be obvious grounds for appeal.

Use of this tape at trial by anyone will be an all or nothing deal.

    Ragspierre in reply to ThomasD. | June 21, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    That is true.

    What is also true is that most everyone here is disposed to just accept Mr. Zimmerman’s account, without any idea of the “rest of the story”, as Mr. Harvey used to say.

    What do you think the Zimmerman’s conduct WRT the bond hearing has done to this video account?

    I think it will be an amazing feat to get the jury to put a lot of credence in this account, if it is ever introduced. And that is a shame.

      luagha in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Fortunately, Zimmerman’s account will and does match up with the other eyewitness accounts taken at the same time.

      It’s only after leading questioning later that some of the other eyewitness accounts appear to change.

        Ragspierre in reply to luagha. | June 21, 2012 at 4:59 pm

        You missed me.

        According to YOU, these accounts match up. Neither of us will ever get near a jury.

        This video…if it EVER appears in court…would ONLY be introduced by the prosecution, IMNHO.

        For the prosecution, under the rules it is NOT INADMISSIBLE hearsay, as it would come in under several exceptions. I doubt they’ll introduce it.

        For the defense to use it, I think Mr. Zimmerman would have to testify. And…again…I think he’s killed his own credibility. I would have to have some REALLY good reasons to let him near the witness box, because he’d get murdered on cross.

        My point was this was a good piece of evidence for Zimmerman BEFORE the bond hearing.

          Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 6:00 pm

          You mean the bond stuff where the prosecution received an answer of “I don’t know” and claimed it was a lie? Where the prosecution, upon being told who *did* know, declined to follow up with that witness? Where the prosecution edited the interview to remove their failure to follow up, thereby committing perjury?

          *That* bond stuff? Because from where I’m sitting, it makes the prosecution look bad, not the defense.

      ThomasD in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm

      Please explain what specific misrepresentations or falsehoods Mr. Zimmerman made at his bond hearing?

        Ragspierre in reply to ThomasD. | June 21, 2012 at 5:34 pm

        http://gzlegalcase.com/images/gz_banner.png

        and the state’s motion to revoke and perjury charging instrument on Mrs. Zimmerman will get you there.

        Begin with the fact that the Zimmermans were there in court to tell the judge they were indigent, which was patently false.

          ThomasD in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 5:54 pm

          Do I need to repeat the question, or will you just ignore it again?

          Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 6:01 pm

          Rags, you do realize the prosecutor committed perjury in that filing, right?

          Or doesn’t the part about “the whole truth” mean anything to you?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 6:08 pm

          Let me just say, watch and see. Some of you believe stuff that is simply not true.

          You can feel free to say naner, naner if I prove wrong.

          retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm

          Wrong, Rags, Stacie Zimmerman was NOT in the court room. She testified by phone, and unfortunately, that did now allow her to witness the antics of Bernie de la Rionda as he waved his hands and acted like a carnival barker.

          Nevermind that the prosecution had access to all the jail house conversation tapes during the initial bond hearing and could have brought those tapes, and the Zimmerman’s credit union statements at that time, into court. Instead, they waited like snakes in the grass so they could add pressure to George Zimmerman and lock him up again. Nothing like going after the young wife to bring pressure on the guy you are trying to railroad.

          And remember this one inconvienent fact: Judge Lester stated, in court, that he did not know if he had the authority to rule on the website PayPal funds. So if Lester is going to make the claim that he was unaware of that money at the time of the initinal bond hearing, he is a bold faced liar.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 8:16 pm

          Sorry. That is one of the weakest, silliest things I’ve heard lately. For one thing, you assign “perfect information” to people, which they never have. Amazing.

          caambers in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 8:21 pm

          You have to remember, these people have had their share, like many, of financial troubles. It appears they were living paycheck to paycheck when this occurred. Thanks to the threats and BS, they lost their home, jobs, and had to go in to hiding. Yes, they did have money in a PayPal account and there is some debate on how availabile are the funds in those accounts. If the prosecution had done their job, they would have had the Zimmerman’s financials on the day of court and then there would have been no need to selectively edit statements later to get the bond revoked. This is a side issue and doesn’t bear on the events of February. Let’s not let the mendacious prosecutors try to make us look behind door #2 and ignore #1.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 8:38 pm

          Look, if you are going to excuse the lies these people told, at least do everybody the favor of getting your basic facts straight.

          Start with getting the burden of proof straight. Cripes.

          Hard financial times do not rob you of your ability to answer a question truthfully. And “I don’t know” CERTAINLY CAN BE A LIE when you knew when you spoke to hubby just a short time before. But, again, this is why people are tried on criminal charges. A jury will decide.

          And a modest prediction; you won’t see anyone giving any traction to the notion that the transcript was “deceptive” as quoted by the investigator (not Corey). Each question the prosecutor thought damning was coupled to its answer. Should there be ellipses…sure. BFD

          Now, go read the Florida Code Of Criminal Procedure I posted the other day. This whole hyperventilation is silly. It would be very, very hard to so mess up a charging instrument that it could not be readily fixed, according to rule.

          retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm

          Rags, if you want “silly” I suggest you re-read some of your own posts. Odd that you did not dispute one thing I said, just lobbed insults.

          For someone who claims to be an attorney, considering the number of times you post here, not to mention over at RiehlWorld, your one client must not keep you very busy.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 9:34 pm

          I directly addressed your bullshit. You just didn’t like it.

          And, as always, I am moved when people worry about my use of my own time.

          lightning in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2012 at 9:39 am

          “I don’t know” is not a lie, and it is something that the prosecution should have followed up on until it was satisfied with the answer. Under Florida law you have to show that the person deliberately did not share information they had at that time when you charge them with perjury. Where is your evidence that the Zimmermans had full knowledge and access to the PayPal account details? PayPal donation accounts are run differently than the one you use for Ebay, and it is entirely possible (even probable) that they did not know what was in the account nor how to access it. Regardless of that, the true question, again, is what evidence is there that the Zimmermans knew how much was in the PayPal account on the day of the bond hearing?

          Phillep Harding in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2012 at 4:56 pm

          BD
          That’s a link to the banner on that web page, not the web page.

          http://gzlegalcase.com/

      deadrody in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2012 at 1:03 am

      Nonsense. The bond hearing was nothing but kabuki theater. He and his wife said “I don’t know” how much there is. That’s all. There is no basis upon which to say that means anything WRT his credibility. Just because they didn’t volunteer the information does not mean “IDK” was not accurate.

      I would be SHOCKED if the bond hearing is even brought up at trial.

        Ragspierre in reply to deadrody. | June 22, 2012 at 9:46 am

        Truly delusional.

        Or gob-smackingly ignorant. Maybe both.

          lightning in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2012 at 9:56 am

          I am truly curious as to how “I don’t know” is a lie? Unless you can prove that they do, in fact, “know” how is this perjury? You call many here “delusional or gob-smackingly ignorant” yet where is your evidence that they had knowledge at the time of the bond hearing? If there is actual evidence that they had knowledge of the account details than please share it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2012 at 10:26 am

          Read the jail recordings, and the information regarding bank transfers.

          I sure would not care to do business with many of you people, who find the Zimmerman’s duplicity and outright lies so easy to excuse.

          And, instead of bashing me, put yourself in the role of prosecutor and conduct a little examination of Zimmerman on the stand in your own mind. Unless you have lost ALL objectivity, you’ll see how this has murdered his creds.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2012 at 11:59 am

      You’ve been barking up a tree that has already been cut down. The bond hearing only hunts right now because O’Mara doesn’t know what he’s doing. A good lawyer would have handled the entire matter differently and had his guy out in a matter of days. O’Mara has feet of clay. He’s let this canard hang in the air for a couple weeks now, so long that it actually sticks as wrongdoing on the part of his client rather than aggressively showing the manipulations and misrepresentations of the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution is helped in this effort by idiots who keep banging the drums for their side in reference to the bond hearing.

        Oh, dear. Now O’Mara is weighed in the balances of the poster girl for CDS, and found wanting.

        He’s in on the conspiracy, too, I bet, huh? Is this where you renew your advice that Zimmerman flee the country and seek political asylum…???

What is really disgusting is the politics that are circling this case, giving me the impression that George Zimmerman doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell.

The day after his son was shot, Tracy Martin contacted Benjamin Crump to represent him. Crump then in turn, hired Raul Julison of Julison PR to control the narrative put out by the lap dog media. Add to that Crump contacting his good friend, Al Sharpton and asking Sharpton to take the story nation on Sharpton’s TV show. Enter pictures of Trayvon Martin as a young 14 year old looking kid, not the kid who had tats, talked about drugs on his Twitter account and had somehow managed to buy a gold grill for his lower teeth.

Then, just one month and one day after the shooting, Pam Bondi jumped into the fray on the Piers Morgan show, when questioned about then Martin/Zimmerman case where she said:

“Well, Piers, first let me tell you. I’ve spoke to Trayvon’s parents. The ae amazing, sweet, kind people. My heart goes out to them. I’m actually friends with their attorneys Ben Crump and Darly Parks. They are wonderful lawyers who are representing them.

What my — I have no legal role as attorney general in the State of Florida. That authority is left to the state attorneys. But what I did do was I discussed with the governor the appointment of Angela Cory, a special prosecutor in Jacksonville who’s well removed from the case. She’s absolutely excellent.

The reason, Piers, I can’t comment on “Stand Your Ground,” where that appli8es here because there are too many unanswered questions. And, as you know, that’s why the family is rightfully upset. When you have an innocent 17-year old boy walking home with Skittles and an iced tea and he’s killed, you have to get answers, not questions. And that’s what we do in our state.”

Never mind that on Dec. 7, 2011 Pam Bondi said this:

“I am where I am today mainly becaue of Angela Corey,” said attorney general Pam Bondi. Bondi said Corey’s leadership and their friendship led her to where she is today……

Or that Angela Corey actually kicked off Pam Bondi’s campaign for AG.

Why was the Florida State Attorney General even commenting on an ongoing investigation on March 27th, before George Zimmerman was arrested on April 11th? Why was there even talk of a special prosecutor when the Seminole County prosecutor had obtained a grand jury date (April 10th) and was then later relieved by Angela Corey. Why was the state AG meeting with Trayvon Martin’s family when it was a local matter? Does Pam Bondi recommend a special prosecutor for every homicide case in Florida? I doubt it. And who was Pam Bondi quoting when she said that Trayvon Martin had gone after Skittles and iced tea, when the fact of the matter is that Trayvon was videoed buying Skittles and Arizona Watermelon drink that are two of the components for a drug called “lean” and Trayvon Martin’s Twitter account shows that he was trying to find an outlet for Robitussin, the third ingredient for “lean?”

Did Pam Bondi ever talk to George Zimmerman’s family and determine what sweet people they are?

This case sucks: I have decided that George Zimmerman cannot get a fair trial in Florida.

    PhillyGuy in reply to retire05. | June 21, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Bingo! Retire you deserve a medal. My son told me about Lean and I did not put two and two together. That is probably what Martin was trying to do. Very crafty preemptive strike by Crump. I hope Zimmerman’s attorney was tipped off to that.

      Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 21, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      Again, indulging in silliness.

      “Lean” will never be mentioned in court. See if you can imagine why.

        retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm

        Rags, are you claiming that Trayvon Martin’s life style, school suspensions and Twitter entries that indicate he was “liken” “lean”, as well as a known pot smoker will not be entered into the trial to describe his character?

        PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm

        Rags, perhaps you should relax a bit and let people offer whatever comments they feel important. In my case, I wasn’t suggesting that the attorneys would introduce that into the trial but simply that it was another detail they should factor in.To defend Zimmerman, I would leave no stone unturned. Now flame away.

          Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 21, 2012 at 10:10 pm

          Why would O’Mara want extraneous crap in his head?

          The whole “Lean” thing is tantalizing speculation to you. To a trial lawyer it is a waste of time.

          Think about why.

        retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2012 at 10:29 pm

        Rags, Trayvon Martin’s discussion of DMX (Robitussin) is not “speculation.” It was on his Twitter account and although someone (Crump?) had it wiped, enterprising bloggers screen captured it for all eternity, and one sent it to O’Mara. On that Twitter account Trayvon also talks about wanted to quit smoking dope for fear of getting “roped” (busted, arrested, etc).

        As to being my being worried about the inordinate amount of time you spent on blogs, usually insulting those who don’t agree with you, don’t flatter yourself. You really are NOT that important, and few people even bother to respond to you, understandably.

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | June 21, 2012 at 10:57 pm

          But O’Mara is not a credulous commenter on a blog.

          He is a trial lawyer, who has to think in terms of what can be proven…or at least supported…under the rules of evidence.

          Unless he could find a witness…of majority age…that would testify he/she had personal knowledge of “Lean” use by Poor Travon(tm) he would face obstacles that would make a trip down that goat trial LESS then worthless.

          Try to think. Read a little.

          Phillep Harding in reply to retire05. | June 21, 2012 at 11:48 pm

          He is an attorney? Most of the ones I know do not have time to post as much as he does.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to retire05. | June 23, 2012 at 12:55 am

          He’s not an attorney. If you read even 1/3 of his voluminous posts over time, that is clear.

          Ragspierre in reply to retire05. | June 23, 2012 at 9:51 am

          I’m an attorney, just as you are an intelligent, but hate-twisted old bigot.

          I have a card, though. You have to be identified by your writing.

    lightning in reply to retire05. | June 22, 2012 at 9:50 am

    You are absolutely correct about the politics of this and after hearing stories of Angela Cory’s other cases, I think this woman needs to be stripped of her ability to prosecute folks since she seems more concerned with overzealous prosecutions than justice. One thing I would like to point out though is a story that didn’t get much press. It was a story about Travon Martin’s parents being misled by a police officer on the Sanford police force. According to this story after Trayvon’s death, a police officer told the parents that they thought Zimmerman’s account was fishy and led them to beleive that although they believed there was more to the situation that Zimmerman wasn’t going to be arrested. This is allegedly what drove Trayvon Martin’s father to hire Crump. If true, this family has also been “played” (possibly for the political motivations you mentioned) and misled. I always keep this story in mind because this shows the scope of the tragedy that could have been avoided had cooler (and less politically motivated) heads prevailed.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to lightning. | June 23, 2012 at 1:00 am

      Nothing the Martins have said thus far has proven true. They can pretty much say whatever they like and nobody dares refute them openly because they are the ‘grieving parents’, lol. The cops aren’t going to get into a pissing match with them by allowing an officer to deny such a thing was said, and did the story even name the officer? Of course not. Don’t fall for Crump’s propaganda.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to retire05. | June 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    You make great points.

    Pam Bondi – what a huge disappointment she is.

so much for keeping your mouth shut and not talking to the police! George Zimmerman’s done the worst thing any defendant should ever do, give evidence 2 the police.

that said Zimmerman’s will be a nightmare for the prosecution.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to mathewsjw. | June 21, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    In North Carolina, in Concealed Carry Permit class, one point is hammered very very strongly – if you are involved in a shooting do NOT talk to the police without an attorney, that the police are not your friend, that they take their findings to the DA who decides on charges.

    I received the same advice on criminal issues in general from my father when I turned 16 and went mobile with a new driver license – if arrested or detained, do NOT talk to the police without an attorney. I considered this expert advice of a sort in that my father was a police officer for 29 years. My bro-in-law, a retired ADA, concurred.

    Estragon in reply to mathewsjw. | June 22, 2012 at 4:32 am

    NEVER talk to the police – it cannot help you and can hurt you even if you are innocent, tell the truth, and don’t give any evidence against yourself!

    This video explains the many ways you can screw yourself, innocent or guilty: http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

I was one of those people when I first heard this story, I thought what the heck? you can’t defend yourself if you are the one who started following someone else. I did think Zimmerman was guilty, based on the intial media reports of the story.

However, I have sort of changed my mind, it seems more and more likely this was self defense, even if Zimmerman was following Martin, there was a history of crime in that neighborhood, so Zimmerman, as the watchman, reported this strange person to the police. Second thing, even if Martin felt like “why is this stranger following me?”, Martin beat Zimmerman up, if Martin had called the police also, this whole thing would never have happened, but Martin was beating up Zimmerman it appears, and so Zimmerman defended himself.

2 sets of situations.
1)Zimmerman follows Martin, so Martin feels threatened.
2)however Martin confronts Zimmerman, and starts the fight? and Zimmerman defends himself.

Of course Martin isn’t there to say his side of the story, but if I was on the jury, I would want to know, from the autospsy results, are the injuries to Martin consistent with what Zimmerman said, like if Martin was beating up Zimmerman, then Martin’s knuckles should be bruised, there should be no other injuries, like what Zimmerman had, back of the head etc.

So, in terms of “without a resonalble doubt”, I’m not sure how Zimmerman can be convicted, especially with no other evidence opposite of what Zimmerman said on the video. At least my 2 cents.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to alex. | June 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Setting aside this case for a moment, simply following a person should never be grounds of forfeiture of the right to self-defense protections. That’s absurd.

To find out a lot more “behind the story” and about lean/purple drank and Martin, I suggest you check out

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/24/update-26-part-2-trayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/

A pretty detailed “expose” of Martin, his drug problem, etc.

    Ragspierre in reply to profshadow. | June 22, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    Read into that, follow the links, do some research, and read the autopsy.

    Think critically.

    That is pseudo-science of a really laughable order.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 21, 2012 at 11:47 pm

Which case gets to court first -this or the 12 year old murderer ?

Luckily for Florida the Zombie got shot dead or there would be 3 high profile cases involving blacks & Hispanics.

I guess this is putting “hanging chads” down the Google Florida Hall Of Fame list.

Paper crimes never beat out some good ole murders.

Hi Ragspierre,

Professional difference of opinion on the comments above.

I think that there’s enough there to question Trayvon Martin’s Mother, Father or Father’s Girlfriend on the stand (you know Corey is going to put them there) as to whether or not Trayvon had a habit of purchasing Cough Syrup (certain types of which are appropriate for the “Lean” drug mixture). Also, asking them about Trayvon’s drug use is entirely fair game and if they say “no” that opens the door to prove it via all the other evidence.

Trayvon’s self-described drug use is obviously relevant to the case, as that was one of Zimmerman’s first statements on the 911 tape as to Martin’s condition.

[Criminal Procedure Discussion]

If Angela Corey is smart, she will make a Motion in Limine to try to prevent Zimmerman’s attorney from talking about Trayvon’s Drug use, which should be loudly objected to at the time by Zimmerman’s attorney.

Since the Judge gets to make the decision if it is relevant and non-prejudicial (the drug use is both) and whether or not it comes in, he will be “on notice” that this stuff exists, and it will give him a basic refresher in “drug culture” and use of Social Media by young druggies.

If Corey is granted the Motion, it behooves Zimmerman’s attorney to bring it up the topic at trial, set up the question, force Corey to object based on the Limine Motion, and then for Zimmerman’s attorney to cross-object to the Motion in Limine itself (thus preserving error for appeal and strengthening the argument at the Appeal Court level because ALL that discussion from the Limine Motion will be part of the record.

[End Criminal Procedure discussion]

Yes Angela Corey will scream bloody murder in an objection if it comes up trying to say “you’re putting the victim on trial” and that is the ENTIRE point, because Trayvon’s motivations and actions are the entire basis of a self-defense strategy.

There’s WHOLE bunches of data which says that Trayvon was at least mentally compromised from prior drug use if not actually ON drugs at the time of the alleged attack on Zimmerman, including but not limited to:
* the convenience store recording (where he’s swaying and unsteady),
* the autopsy (intimating brain and liver damage from consistent drug, prove it via expert testimony),
* the screenshots of the Social Media (and subpoenaing the other druggies to testify, no 5th Amendment Privilege and not inadmissible Hearsay),
* the educational records of his punishment for drug residue in his backpack,
* prior violent actions at school for which punishment was instituted,
* the possession of two of the three ingredients of the “lean” mixture at the time of the attack,
* the timetable (res ipsa loquitur) due to temperature and atmospheric conditions as opposed to how Trayvon was dressed.

Are there going to be some procedural hurdles and objections to overcome? Sure. But I don’t think it’s nearly as unlikely as you that this all comes into the trial and the main discussion becomes whether or not Trayvon was intoxicated at the time of the alleged attack on Zimmerman for which Zimmerman shot him.

    Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | June 22, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Chuck, I appreciate your analysis, while disagreeing strongly with some of it.

    First, you can’t get past the Martin drug screen in autopsy.

    Second, if I were Corey, I stipulate that Martin used marijuana. BFD. On the night in question, he was not intoxicated, as I understand the legal definition. The science of THP intoxication does not support aggressive behavior…sort of the opposite, as I understand.

    If you are found with a lighter and rolling papers, would you think you could be prosecuted for marijuana possession? I hope not. So, Skittles and a soft drink opens the door to “Lean”? Naw. Probative/prejudicial analysis makes that silly, IMNHO.

    Is the science around “Lean” well enough established to survive a Daubet challenge? I dunno, but I doubt it.

    Now, where I think there is an opening here is the “self-defense hearing”, which is a procedure I don’t well understand, and could basically change some of the procedural problems with the whole “Lean” ambit.

    The social media stuff is several kinds of cans of worms, as you know. Worst is that it is pure hearsay, and I don’t see an exception. But authenticity, reliability, etc., too.

    But a lot of what you say has merit. Would you, as O’Mara, invest a lot of resources on this?

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      If Corey stips to pot, the defense can bring in his other drug use. Further, the the entire autopsy findings are fair game. Martin had signs of early brain damage. The jump to “lean” use, considering the ingredients and his purchases, is a short one. Since the prosecution’s entire case turns on who was where and who was doing what leading up to the shooting, no judge is going to keep that out unless he wants any resulting conviction overturned before the ink is dry on the verdict slip. Look back at the kinds of things the defense was allowed in in the Casey Anthony case, such as completely unsubstantiated charges of sexual abuse against her father that supposedly took place years before Caylee was even born.

      Hi again Ragspierre,

      I don’t think that O’Mara should invest a lot of resources in this particular line, but I think that it is important enough not to be ignored either. It’s definitely a useful tool to impeach both the parent-figures on their credibility about their son being an “innocent” child or a “little angel” and on destroying Prosecutor Corey’s characterization of the events as they unfolded.

      Regarding the drug screen, my guess is that the standard drug screen doesn’t test for DXM levels or the chemical substances it breaks down into (because it’s a legal substance). Since the tox screen wouldn’t be looking for it, the screen would read as “clean.” Knowing what the DXM levels were in Martin’s blood at the time of death might yield a defense path, and would likely be worth testing a portion of the remaining blood (if any) for levels if possible. Again, if impossible or impracticable, simply make the res ipsa argument based on the convenience store video (Martin’s unsteadiness), the stuff Martin was purchasing and the timeline / environmental conditions that Martin had to be under the influence of ‘something’ to be acting in the manner he was and move on having planted the seed with the Jury.

      Regarding the purchase of the Watermelon Juice and Skittles: no, it wouldn’t be enough to get a conviction for drug use, but it would be enough to draw an inference with the Jury, which is all Zimmerman really needs to be able to walk. Ask the question of WHY Martin may have been going to to purchase those particular items at that particular time, under those particular condidions and suggest that Martin might have been trying to “re-dose” on “lean.” O’Mara’s task is to get the jurors to make that little step from the “well, Martin did drugs in the past” to “well, COULD Martin have been under the influence of a substance at the time of the altercation?” If the jury is asking themselves that question, Zimmerman should win.

      DXM intoxication isn’t like THC intoxication. Where THC supposedly makes you mellow, DXM is more like an “Acid” trip from what I understand. With DXM (as with Acid), you’re fine until you’re not, and you go from being fine to being psychotic basically in an instant depending on what the trigger is and what your particular reaction to that trigger would be under normal conditions. In Martin’s case, it would probably be a “persecution” complex from the drug sub-culture, where if being followed, he would think it dangerous. However the DXM intoxication might override the “I should run away to safety” impulse and replace it with both a paranoia about who was following him, a grandiose view of himself as invincible and thus able to take out whomever was perceived to be a threat, and what doing so would do to raise his own reputation. It would mess with the perceptions of reality, as well as explaining the “Ok, you got me. You got me.” response after being shot, because Martin’s brain wouldn’t be able to properly process and prioritize the information of the trauma, with the tramua resetting his brain to the “mellow” state but seeing as thinking of himself as invincible, would think “not a big deal.”

      I think that discussion of “lean” survives a Daubert challenge if you get the right expert in the hip-hop/thug movement and drug sub-culture. Enough rappers have died from “lean” use to make it known, and it is prevalent enough to get attention. The DEA stuff, while not dispositive on its own, defines it enough to probably allow it to survive a prosecution challenge against bringing up the discussion of if Martin’s behavior was consistent with either current intoxication or long-term abuse.

      Also, I think that if you get an expert in DXM abuse onto the stand you can then talk about the specific findings in the autopsy which deal with the specific brain damage and liver damage that was found in the Martin autopsy, and make a credible claim that it was caused by long-term DXM abuse. This might be successfully challenged under Daubert because the science is much weaker here, but probably worth an attempt, because even if it is overruled on Daubert, O’Mara has made his proffer, put it onto the record and preserved the potential error for appeal.

      The self-defense angle does change the burdens somewhat. Mostly because the defense is attempting to make the Jury understand why the (from the Jury’s perspective) Victim deserved or brought upon himself the actions of the Defendant. The Character of the Victim becomes important because it colors the perception of if the Defendant’s choices were reasonable at the time. Corey is going to have to attempt to make Martin look “peaceful” while O’Mara’s task will be to destroy that image. The Jury’s question becomes “was this a reasonable action for Zimmerman to take at the instant that he took it?” If they answer “Yes” then Zimmerman wins on Self Defense.

      To that end, ALL that thuggish social media contact (as well as subpoening Martin’s high-school contemporaries) becomes fair to use. It is either Martin describing his own actions in his own words (even if speaking to a third party) akin to an admission, or his contemporaries descriptions of Martin in their own statements, admissions of that 3rd party).

      Also, the Social Media stuff might be enterable into evidence to prove habit of Martin under the Florida versions of exceptions to hearsay as past 803(1) present sense impression of Martin; a past 803(3) a then-existing mental, emotional or physical conditions; or perhaps even a past 803(5) recorded recollection and definitely under an 803(21) reputation of character among associates or in the community. Originals of the social media entries should be retrievable via subpoena for up to 3 years from backups regardless of what Ben Crump has done to attempt to destroy them and cleanse the slate for Martin’s parents.

      So, is it worth a lot of resources? No. I don’t think so. But, I think there’s enough there to do an awful lot of damage to Prosecutor Corey’s case, which is going to have to hinge on the “Trayvon was a good kid” and “Zimmerman murdered him without provocation” characterizations.

        Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | June 23, 2012 at 10:51 pm

        Chuck, I’m sorry you took all that time to write that.

        Most, if not all, of it is ridiculous.

        Take just one item; there are no brain lesions associated with DXM use. The poor boob who wrote the “Year In The Life” blog post used as his primary source another (very NOT scientific) blog.

        http://www.erowid.org/general/about/about_crew.shtml

        http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm.shtml

        Go down to “Health”. There you will find what “sundancecracker” failed to note; http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_health3.shtml. This is the author of the Olney Lesions BS retracting his BS.

        There is no science supporting any brain lesions attributed to DXM.

        Now, go to the Martin autopsy. You will find the histological examination of the liver found no abnormalities. Gross examination noted some fat deposits. Those are not scientifically significant indices of DXM abuse. Any medical expert would testify that they are caused by a raft of MUCH more likely actors, including genetics.

        The ONLY way O’Mara MIGHT hope to get ANY evidence of DXM use into evidence…and the ONLY real relevance it MIGHT have…would be to have a blood gas chromatography test run.

        That, of course, would be a double-edged sword; discovery works both ways, and O’Mara would be obliged to produce negative test results for intoxication. Even if “first plateau” intoxication was indicated, that is like THC or mild alcohol intoxication, from the resources Jacked provided.

        Also, note from the autopsy there is no colored liquid noted in the stomach contents.

        BTW, saying that very high doses of DXM are “disassociatives” is like saying a Vespa and a 747 are wheeled vehicles. It is true, but silly. Read up on “disassociatives”.

        A slightly skilled trial attorney would not allow the Martins to stray into “Travon was an angel” territory. A SLIGHTLY skilled defense attorney will only very gingerly attack the Martins unless they have clearly gone too far.

        If I were the State’s attorney, I’d inoculate the jury in opening. Trayvon Martin was a human being, blah, blah, blah. They would hear that the evidence would show X,Y, and some Z about Trayvon.

        You continue to ignore hearsay, reliability, and authenticity problems with the social media crap. You can’t, and they are deadly.

        Nor would it be enough to even introduce the testimony of someone who communicated with Martin about “Lean”. They CANNOT testify as to hearsay, either. Nor would Martin’s claims be at all reliable, since teenage boys OFTEN talk big. He’s not there to cross, so… No hearsay admitted, IMNHO…and experience.

        As I noted earlier, you would have to have “personal knowledge” testimony of Martin’s use of “Lean” from a COMPETENT witness.

        AND you would need physical evidence, supported by expert testimony to even get to relevance to the night in question. You are quite sanguine about Daubert challenges. Have you ever made or met one in court?

        The hearsay exceptions in Florida may be MUCH looser than they are under Texas or Federal rules, but I really doubt it. None of those you mentioned would work, unless Florida is a LOT more forgiving of hearsay. I don’t wanna drill that far into Florida case law, buy you may, if you wish.

        I am much less charitable about your “swaying” delusions from the store tape. Who are you going to get to introduce that during the case-in-chief? A cop would cut you to pieces. You COULD argue that in closing, but I think you’d be on very thin ice UNLESS you proved intoxication. Most juries in my experience don’t like you trying stuff like that. Remember, the State closes.

          Enh. Again, difference in professional opinion. I’m way out in Western Texas, so I understand what you mean about the hearsay exceptions taking some work to overcome. But, with the right angle of attack, I think that O’Mara can get around most, if not all, of them in this case.

          Your comment on gas chromatography and discovery being a double-edged sword are well taken. It does present a risk that Martins blood comes back inconclusive, or worse negative, for Dextrorphan (what dextromethorphan is metabolized into). But if it comes back distinctly negative intoxication is moot anyway and O’Mara should avoid it and focus on trying to sell Martin as merely violent by nature.

          Most of the cases I’m attached to from one standpoint or another are currently are TX Dept. of Family & Protective Services cases (CPS / APS) or Deceptive Trade Practices cases. Opposing experts on the issues involved are not uncommon.

          Daubert comes up in my line of work, but it’s usually on topics that are less theoretical and that have more research done. I’m sanguine about them because I’ve seen them done masterfully and I’ve seen them done poorly. That’s ultimately why I think that a drug culture expert probably survives a Daubert challenge but the autopsy discussion probably doesn’t due to lack of research / conflicting science on the topic of permanent brain damage from Excitotoxicity of NMDA receptors, not just the now disavowed Olney Lesions. As with so many other things in this case, it would have to be something that an autopsy examiner would have to be looking for, not something that would abnormally present on its own.

          If Martin were only drinking the liquid “Lean” mixture first, half of it would have cleared his stomach in 12 minutes from drinking, and it would have fully cleared his stomach within 2 hours. DXM has a long half-life and can last 6-10 hours. If Martin were dosed on it, he could have taken it 3 or more hours before and still have been at a reasonably high dosing level, thus the DXM containing contents of the stomach would have already emptied into the intestines and been absorbed. Also, the autopsy does note “400 milliliters of gastric fluid with food particles.” The autopsy is silent on the description of said fluid, which may or may not be relevant (I don’t know). Other than that, the autopsy report was pretty sparse.

          As for dissociative pharmaceuticals, I actually know quite a bit about them. It depends on how much DXM Martin consumed to determine where he was on the dosing chart. At 158 pounds (71.6675kg), Martin would have had to consume 1 8oz bottle of the proper type of Robitussin to get above a low 3rd plateau dose of 7.5 mg/kg (236ml x (15mg/5ml) = 708mg) (708 mg / 71.6675 kg = 9.8789 mg/kg). At this level, individuals can dissociate with the right triggers.

          As for the actual trial practice:

          Yes, Corey is going to try to inoculate the Jury (and she should). Yes, she will try to corral the parents from overly sanctifying their child and O’Mara should tread lightly as to not be attacking the “grieving parents.”

          That said, if O’Mara’s just bringing in the drug use to challenge credibility, hearsay isn’t an issue because O’Mara isn’t using it to prove truth of the matter asserted, but to challenge credibility of the witness as ignorant of their son’s own statements regarding his drug use. No hearsay problem at all.

          If O’Mara does want to prove the statements, then he does have some hurdles to overcome, but not insurmountable, and if denied, preserve them for error on appeal.

          Get the Social Media to provide a list of IP addresses from which Martin’s posts were made. Cross-reference it against Martin’s IPs for devices he had access to. Then eliminate other individuals from access to that device (did Martin have his own computer? If so, use all posts from that device only and ask the parents pointedly if they EVER used it). Subpoena copies of Martin’s hard drives for verification purposes.

          Also, while still having some verification problems, O’Mara might also be able to get in Martin’s social media statements as 804(3) statements against interest due to Martin exposing himself to criminal liability at the time Martin made them. Since it’s not being used to expose Martin (the declarant) to criminal penalty now 804(3)(b) is irrelevant as to clear indication of trustworthiness. Make Prosecutor Corey make the objection and then try to explain why those statements, which purportedly are her victim speaking, shouldn’t be evaluated by the jury as to Martin’s character.

          Any other individuals on the other sides of those conversations can testify as to their own interactions with Martin, as to what Martin said TO THEM. They’re not an “ear-witness” as my Civil Prof used to say, they’re the party to the conversation. Again, no hearsay problem because the other declarant (Martin) is unavailable. Also, like I said above, question the individuals under 803(21) as to Martin’s “reputation” in the community, and all Martin’s “Big Talk” comes in as Martin’s holding out of his own image to the community at large. Again, you can’t use it to prove Martin was on drugs at the time of the shooting, but you can use it to plant the seed with the Jury that Martin was a drug user and try to get the jury to make that step on its own.

          I don’t see the “personal knowledge” angle as being a big deal. Put the other end of the conversation witness on the stand, ask them “did Trayvon Martin ever discuss doing (insert names of drugs here) with you?” If they say yes, move on. If they say no, bring in all the social media interactions to prove it and let them deny that those are their words or that someone else was using their social media at the time and then get THAT person on the stand. Remind them that the penalties for perjury can be severe and that they’re under oath and somebody WILL crack.

          As for getting the swaying introduced, put the convenience store clerk on the stand. Have him testify to his personal knowledge of Martin’s behavior in the store, and if he can’t remember, try to make an 803(5) recorded recollection proffer to the witness of the tape to jog his memory of the night in question. Corey can then object, and we can get some very interesting jurisprudence on whether a video record of an event can classify as a “document” for the purposes of a recorded recollection in refreshing a witness’ memory.

          Yes, the State closes, but here’s where the issue is going to take a left turn from normal prosecution. As you said, the Defense isn’t saying “prove it” to the Prosecution. The Defense is saying to the Jury “Yes. Not only did i DO it, YOU would have done the same thing in my shoes, and here is exactly WHY.” The Convenience store clerk should be one of the FIRST witnesses that O’Mara puts on the stand after Zimmerman because he/she was one of the last persons to see Martin and can testify as to his/her perceptions of how Martin was acting / speaking (about 45 minutes?) before Martin was shot. The description of Martin’s actions will set up everything else. O’Mara can make the intimation that we know that Martin was attempting to get high on substances that might not normally show up during toxicity screens post-mortem. It’s probably the weakest argument if all the other reports come back inconclusive, but I think it should probably still be made, because it has a chance of providing proper context.

          Here, the defense doesn’t actually have to prove that Martin was on anything. They just have to provide the narrative that we know that Martin had been attempting to get high on legal chemicals that may or may not show up in a standard tox screen, had at least smoked marijuana recently, may have been attempting to get ingredients to get high again while out walking around, and was acting like he was under the influence of something as he was walking around, which is what drew the attention of Zimmerman in the first place. You set all the pieces in place and say to the Jury “Is it possible that Martin was high on an unknown substance at the time he attacked Zimmerman?

          At least that’s how I would structure it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 24, 2012 at 2:57 pm

          803(5)…in my experience…works every time it is tried. You can show the witness any damn thing if they answer, “Uhhh…yeah…”

          You CAN’T show it to the jury, however. Not unless you can get it into evidence.

          **Put the other end of the conversation witness on the stand, ask them “did Trayvon Martin ever discuss doing (insert names of drugs here) with you?”**

          Object; the question calls for a hearsay response. Further objection; relevance.

          **Any other individuals on the other sides of those conversations can testify as to their own interactions with Martin, as to what Martin said TO THEM.**

          The purest kind of hearsay I can think of, yes?

          **804(3) statements against interest due to Martin exposing himself to criminal liability at the time Martin made them.**

          Except Martin is not a party, and is not on trial. Maybe you know some case law respecting that, but the only application of it I’ve seen is when the statement was made by a party to the case.

          And maybe you could shoehorn an argument at closing that Trayvon was under the influence of some mystery substance.

          I’d happily slam your nose in the door with, “OK, ladies and gentleman; the Defendant wants you to believe Mr. Martin was on pixie dust when George Zimmerman shot him to death. Now, let’s be real, shall we? Have you seen any pixie dust evidence in this trial? Where was the Defendant’s pixie dust expert? Remember that testimony? I didn’t hear that, did you? Where was the toxicology report on pixie dust? Be sure to take that back with you to your deliberations. If you can’t find that in the evidence before you, don’t be surprised. There isn’t any. Not one shred. If this is all Mr. Zimmerman can come up with to explain his slaying of this young man, you know what you have to do. He cannot throw pixie dust in the air, and expect to fool you. You must find him guilty as charged.”

          Of course, it is ENTIRELY possible that O’Mara WILL get a blood sample tested, and come back with a positive. But that remains to be seen.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm

          Coupla very quick points that occur…

          1. IF I got back a high-dose positive on DXM, I’d LEAN on Corey to dismiss immediately… Heh.

          2. One cause of fatty deposits on the liver is Corticosteroid use. I know next to nuthin’ about steroid abuse, but, given the “fight club” video, I’d damn sure want a blood test to look for any sign of that, maybe showing “roid rage”.

          3. The “fight club” thingy is a lot more promising, I think, as a defense show-and-tell. SOME evidentiary challenges, but readily overcome with some detective work.

          Cute with the LEAN comment. You actually made me lose my train of thought for a moment…. I concur, though.

          I know just enough about steroids to know that I don’t know enough to comment on it. I know that roid-rage exists. If that’s important to this case, it’s outside my wheelhouse.

          I think you’re right that the fight club thingy is more promising. I’m just not sure I would completely hang my hat on it alone. I would much rather also be able to say “not only was Trayvon Martin a violent punk, he may also have been mentally compromised.

          803(5) – If you show the convenience store clerk the video, and then he testifies, Prosecutor Corey will introduce the convenience store video FOR O’Mara. She won’t want the witness seeing something, and then testifying as to what he remembers without the Jury seeing it too and Corey suggesting that the Jury members to attempt to draw their own conclusions. That one is actually easy with how narcissistic Corey is.

          Ok, rephrase: (with witness on the stand) Did YOU (witness) ever discuss (insert name of drug here) with Trayvon Martin?

          Reply to objection: Your honor, we’re investigating what the witness on the stand discussed with the victim. Clearly it is not hearsay for the witness to discuss his own part of the conversation, and to put it in the context of what he was discussing at that time with the Victim and/or whether or not the victim responded. We’re not using it to prove the truth of the matter asserted, merely that Martin was a PARTY to the conversation and he did respond in some manner. The Prosecution is free to enter into evidence their victim’s side of the conversation to enlighten the Jury as to the Victim’s responses. Or, alternatively, we ask to enter the social media conversation after this witness is through to show Trayvon Martin’s responses were within the 804(3) hearsay exception as statements against his own penal interest.

          Reply to relevance: Further, using Trayvon Martin’s statements against his penal interest, the defense will show that there are certain legally sold substances which the victim was investigating and/or possibly using near the time of his death which might not show up during a standard toxicity screen which if the victim was under the influence of at the time of his attack upon the Defendant might otherwise explain the Victim’s behavior as well as the Defendant’s belief that the Victim was on drugs, as stated during the 911 call. It is relevant because it offers context as to what the Victim’s mental and physical state might have been and why the victim would be attacking the defendant so viciously as to cause the Defendant to have a broken nose, two black eyes and two gashes across the back of the Defendant’s head before the Victim decided to reach for the Defendant’s side arm.

          As for the 804(3) statements – Because of the weird procedural posture this case is in under self-defense law, even though Martin isn’t a party himself, Martin will be the subject of the entire hearing as either the victim or the attacker. As such statements Martin made himself and about his own prior actions will become relevant as to attempting to determine what state of mind Martin was in at the time of his death. Whether or not such intoxication actually does explain Martin’s behavior then becomes a question of fact which the Jury should specifically decide. I’ve seen 804(3) used to impeach non-party witnesses on credibility. Here what it would be used for is to impeach Martin’s overall character and paint him with that brush, by basically making him stand on his prior statements since he can’t be in the courtroom in person, even though you couldn’t use the statements themselves to prove conformity of action therewith at the time of Martin’s death.

          As for the pixiedust context, that’s the point of putting on a drug-culture expert once you have the other friends parts of the conversation, basically to translate. I think that O’Mara can actually get it in his case-in-chief. All this presupposes that O’Mara can get a blood sample to come back either positive or inconclusive for Dextromethorophan or Dextorophan. If it comes back clean, it’s moot.

          Here’s the order I would call witnesses in if I were O’Mara:

          Zimmerman (first) – he’s got to sell to the jury that he was being viciously attacked by Martin. If he can’t do that, he’s toast anyway. If he can, the Jury is GOING to want to know “why would Martin do that?” (because that’s the quintessential question all people want to know, and all attorneys hate).

          Convenience Store Clerk (second) – testify as to Trayvon Martin’s physical state when in the Convenience store. Again, if he/she can’t remember 803(5) recorded recollection, which Corey will then ask to be entered into the record so the Jury doesn’t wonder “what did the Defense show to the witness which got him to remember what was happening that night.”

          If both of those intimate that Martin was acting in any way intoxicated, the DEFENSE should bring up the toxicity screen, and then use to say “what other substances could Trayvon Martin have been experimenting with which might have caused him to behave in such a vicious manner?” The Defense will show that Martin had recently been experimenting with not only Cannabis, of which trace amounts were found in his system consistent with having smoked pot in the days prior to the attack, but also was discussing with his friends abusing other over-the-counter drugs in quantities far beyond normal doses.

          At this point, Corey will either object or she won’t, If Corey objects, Defense will make an offer of proof in the form of the testimony of the social-media friends and to Martin’s reputation in the community, because Corey will have opened the door to it. If Corey does not object, Defense should move to enter the social media conversations into evidence and discuss them as 804(3) admissions of the Victim since he isn’t able to testify to his own good character (yeah, that one is cold, but necessary).

          If necessary, use that to call the friends (third) to the stand to discuss THEIR OWN sides of the conversation with Martin. Start with “Please describe what you discussed when you were making social media posts with Trayvon Martin on X date(pick a date discussing drugs)?” Walk through the witnesses posts (not Martins). Ask the witness “did Trayvon Martin RESPOND to your posts and statements?” (force the witness to answer yes). “So you were discussing (insert name of drug here) and Trayvon Martin was responding to your statements?” (force the witness to answer yes).

          provide the written social-media posts, and then bring in Martin’s social-media documentation under 804(3). Either the friends admit it or you impeach the friends with it. Corey may even do this one FOR the Defense depending on who is on her witness list, but I doubt it.

          O’Mara then uses Martin’s posts to shoe-horn in a drug culture expert, discusses the slang and types of drugs Martin was discussing in his posts, what the potential effects and side-effects of said drug use could be, and if those drugs would appear on a standard corner’s toxicity screen. O’Mara uses the expert to set up the response to what Corey will claim is a clean tox screen: by intimating that the corner isn’t going to find a legal substance he wasn’t looking for. That then at least forces Corey to put her own expert on the stand and to make a statement as to what would show up or be findable in the blood.

          Again, that all assumes that the tox screen comes back inconclusive. If it comes back positive for DXM, this becomes a slam dunk defense. If it comes back negative, it’s all moot.

          It’s too bad I don’t live closer to you. It would be useful to sit down from time to time as colleagues so I could bounce trial ideas off of you for particularly difficult cases.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 24, 2012 at 9:05 pm

          http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/chapter90.html

          Not being a criminal lawyer (is that redundant…criminal and lawyer?) I sure don’t know our rules to a T WRT criminal procedure and evidence. But Florida has some that appear pretty restrictive.

          I agree. It would be fun to get together and bash cases. One of the things I miss most being a solo is being able to bounce stuff off of someone down the hall. I also live in dread fear of getting blinkered on a case, which is easy to do because so much of civil litigation takes freaking YEARS! Good to have someone who pins your balloon from time to time.

          If I’m O’Mara, I have a blood test run, covering the waterfront ASAP. I also have my investigators out getting the predicates for the fight video’s introduction into evidence.

        Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | June 24, 2012 at 7:54 am

        Just a quick loop back on this from a jury charge standpoint.

        When I take on a case, I read the jury charge for the torts or other civil wrongs I’m dealing with, and work from there.

        Contra JackedRatTerrier, this case is nothing like the Casey Anthony case, and the testimony will not be as open as was her’s.

        There is no doubt that there was a homicide, and who committed it.

        The State has a very few burdens to meet here, not that those are easy to meet.

        Classically, Zimmerman has no burden. He’s innocent under the law.

        But here, he pretty much needs to prove he acted in self-defense.

        He could paint Trayvon as the cat-daddy pimp and drug king-pin of Miami (and the “expose” quoted here is just fantastic, stupid, and embarrassing), and that is irrelevant to his defense UNLESS he SHOWS, BY EVIDENCE, some connection to Trayvon’s actions that night. Otherwise, it is irrelevant to anyone’s burden. Part of the judge’s instructions would, I think, include that. Properly so.

        You CAN imply stuff to a jury, and they CAN infer opinions from it, but that has STRICT limits. You are not going to get away with inferring intoxication without PROVING intoxication.

        The “fight club” video I think is MUCH more fertile ground, and I really know very little about it. If I were O’Mara, that is where my investigations would be focused.

        Zimmerman’s best, most valuable asset was his credibility, which seems pretty good in the video. He gutted that.

      Oh, dear. Now you will be an “expert” on DXM, as you are on criminal defense.

      You poor old thing.

      You do know that DEA people are not “experts” except in a very, very limited realm, right? And that the Martin autopsy showed no signs of anything rationally (i.e., scientifically) connected to DXM use, right?

No, but she should not have surpressed attempts to impeach Dubya for war crimes. She should have hero status among the right wing for that.

One discrepancy in Zimmerman’s account is with regard to what he says he did after the police call. The distance between where his truck was parked and where he says he went is not that great. And he was already at least halfway there when he was still on the phone. “He ran” would have been said while he could see down the path between the townhomes. And he remained on the phone for a minute and a half after he said “He ran”. It was only a short distance to Retreat View Circle from where he would have been standing. And then a short walk back to Twin Trees Lane where he truck was parked. But there is two and a half minutes between when Zimmerman hangs up and when the 911 calls started. Even allowing for 30 seconds between when they started yelling at each other to when the calls started, the three and a half minutes that remain is plenty of time for Zimmerman to walk to Retreat View Circle and get an address and turn around and get back to his truck.

You can see Zimmerman lying on the reenactment in order to take any “following Martin” out of his story. He says incorrectly that
a) After stopping at the clubhouse in his vehicle, he only followed Martin after the dispatcher asked him if he could “get to somewhere where he could see him”.
b) Zimmerman got out of his car when he saw Martin start to run. But in the enactment he incorrectly states that he got out because he had been asked for an address and he was trying to get one.
c) Zimmerman claims to the detective that he needed to go over to the other street to get an address because “these are the back of the houses” as he points to the back of townhouses on his left, while it is clear that there is the front of a townhouse to his right that he could get an address from.
d) You can see that there is too much time for his story to be true with respect to “just getting an address. He is on phone for another minute and a half after saying “he ran” which he correctly states occurred at the T in the sidewalk. A minute and a half is enough time to walk to the street he claims he was going to, get an address and walk back to his truck. After he hangs up, there is another 2 and a half minutes until the 911 phone calls start. Enough time for Zimmerman to have back in his truck and finishing off a couple of doughnuts. The “just getting an address” also doesn’t agree with his desire to have the police call when they got there rather than meet him by the mailboxes or his truck.

He is clearly following Martin but is lying in order to

    Twilliger in reply to Twilliger. | June 23, 2012 at 10:13 am

    … lying in order to avoid any guilt due to the fact that he got out of his truck armed and followed and did not return to his truck after being told they didn’t need him to follow.

    Nah. 120 seconds is a short period of time if you’ve just stopped from one mental task to another. The brain is still attempting to process information of what you were just doing. That being said, it’s entirely reasonable that a person would walk slower when turning around and retracing their steps instead of walking quickly and with purpose directly back.

    If anything, the time is just about right between the hang-up and the 911 calls for Trayvon to have attempted to jump Zimmerman and start beating his head into the pavement.

    Also Twilliger you’re showing your ignorance of self-defense practice. When carrying a concealed firearm, you don’t take it off and you NEVER leave it behind. You strap it on and you wear it until you take it off, usually with the rest of your out-door gear (like your shoes).

      Twilliger in reply to Chuck Skinner. | June 23, 2012 at 8:10 pm

      Nah. You and George have some terrible problems with respect to “just looking for an address.” First of all, there was an address right by where he parked. Second of all, it wasn’t 120 seconds. He was on the phone for 90 seconds AFTER he was at the T in the sidewalk and said “He ran”. That makes it 210 seconds – or over three minutes between when he was halfway to his alleged destination and when the fight started.

      But even worse for his story. When he allegedly got the address he didn’t call back! The only purpose for getting an address would be to call and tell police since he claims he is getting the address because he couldn’t give them one when he asked. (But again, we know he is lying because there is an address right by his vehicle). But he claims he got the address and then walked back to his vehicle. So are we to believe that when the police got there, he was going to give them an address on another street from where they were standing. And then they were supposed to do something with that?

      Zimmerman strapped it on and he is doing all kinds of tap dancing in his reenactment trying to paint a picture of “not following”. If “strapping it on and following” is so copasetic to you, it ain’t to George.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend